Theories


Richard Cook
 

Could someone please explain what happens when we put forward a #THEORY?  Does whatever happens happen to them all, or just some?

I believe that I am not just an automaton, slavishly typing exactly what I see, but should be able to help future researchers with guidance where there is good evidence that the indexes from which we are working are in error.  We have to ‘type what you see’, and we cannot change anything, but guidance could be given by sensible use of #THEORY.  However, there is no point offering one if it is just creating excessive work for the Admin/technical team, because whatever happens when a #THEORY is offered is processed manually.

The query has arisen because I advised my co-ordinator of a #THEORY I added when I transcribed surname BILTONTERRY, forename R (no period) marrying a COLINSON. I suggested that whoever transcribes the COLINSON entry may be advised to add an equivalent #THEORY, as the concatenation of surname and forename may not be so obvious to them.  I also told my co-ordinator that I had had another similar incident a few days earlier, where BIDDLECOMBE, WAYNE J. married a spouse FERGUSSONNATALIE, who was found on checking to have a forename ‘T’.  My co-ordinator was concerned with my wording of the latter #THEORY in that I referred to the ‘corresponding entry’, but it seems to have gone through on the latest update without being flagged as suspicious

Many thanks

Richard



Sent from Outlook


'Barrie'
 

Could I commend the Explore facility to which there is a link at the bottom of most pages (but not search). The Explore facility enables one to search the FreeBMD site for information (for obvious reasons the facility could not be called "Search"). The second hit for "theory" is to the Comments Help page which contains the guidance being requested.

The first point to make is that even if nothing further is done with #THEORY the information contained in it is available to researchers from the Information page that one can get to by clicking on the Info button next to an entry. The entry will have the envelope symbol to indicate it has a comment. This is all done automatically by the system.

The content of #THEORY lines are reviewed on an ad hoc basis and where appropriate further action is taken. This is a manual process that mainly results in the creation of System Entries which are entries created by the admin team to enable records that are (or may be) incorrect to be found via the "correct" version. In the search results it is made clear that such entries are not in the index but there is a link, in the Information page, to the original entry that is in the index. This is mentioned in the Comments Help page.

I can understand why your coordinator was dubious about a reference to a "corresponding entry" given the advice in the Comments Help page but there is no problem with it since researchers can look up the "corresponding entry", something which is not true, for example, if you refer to the "next" entry.

Regards

Barrie

On 05/06/2021 12:03, Richard Cook wrote:

Could someone please explain what happens when we put forward a #THEORY?  Does whatever happens happen to them all, or just some?

I believe that I am not just an automaton, slavishly typing exactly what I see, but should be able to help future researchers with guidance where there is good evidence that the indexes from which we are working are in error.  We have to ‘type what you see’, and we cannot change anything, but guidance could be given by sensible use of #THEORY.  However, there is no point offering one if it is just creating excessive work for the Admin/technical team, because whatever happens when a #THEORY is offered is processed manually.

The query has arisen because I advised my co-ordinator of a #THEORY I added when I transcribed surname BILTONTERRY, forename R (no period) marrying a COLINSON. I suggested that whoever transcribes the COLINSON entry may be advised to add an equivalent #THEORY, as the concatenation of surname and forename may not be so obvious to them.  I also told my co-ordinator that I had had another similar incident a few days earlier, where BIDDLECOMBE, WAYNE J. married a spouse FERGUSSONNATALIE, who was found on checking to have a forename ‘T’.  My co-ordinator was concerned with my wording of the latter #THEORY in that I referred to the ‘corresponding entry’, but it seems to have gone through on the latest update without being flagged as suspicious

Many thanks

Richard



Sent from Outlook